State v. Cash, S--465
| Decision Date | 10 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. S--465,S--465 |
| Citation | 275 So.2d 605 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. George Lee CASH, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Donald C. Jacobson, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
By this interlocutory appeal, the State seeks reversal of the lower court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence found in his automobile.
The only facts pertinent to a disposition of the issue of whether said evidence was inadmissible because it was the fruit of an unlawful search and in violation of defendant's constitutional rights are as herein set out. On June 17, 1972, defendant was arrested for trespassing at the Town and Surf Motel in Daytona Beach. As he was being walked to the police car to be taken to the police station, the motel owner advised the arresting officer that the defendant had a car on the motel premises and asked that it be removed. The arresting officer then called a wrecker to have the car towed to the police compound while the defendant was in jail. Before the wrecker arrived, the arresting officer went to the car to make a 'routine inventory . . . to make sure there is nothing that can be claimed of value that might have possible been taken from the car while impounded.' This was normal police procedure when dealing with impounded vehicles. After placing the defendant's keys in the ignition, the arresting officer observed a cellophane bag containing a substance which appeared to be marijuana. This bag was lying in the open console between the bucket seats and it was in plain view. When the front seat was pushed forward so that the back seat could be inventoried, an orange capsule came into plain view. These two items--the bag containing cannabis and the orange capsule--were the subject of the order granting defendant's motion to suppress.
The State contends that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence found in defendant's car for the reason that the arresting officer had a lawful right to be in the position from which he viewed the evidence inasmuch as he was conducting a routine inventory search of the vehicle before impounding it. Once lawfully inside the defendant's vehicle, what is observed in plain view cannot be objected to, for to observe what is in plain sight is not a search. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Schultz
...also exists when the owner of property on which the arrestee's vehicle is parked requests that it be removed. (See State v. Cash (Fla.App.1973), 275 So.2d 605.) The fact that the arrestee's car would be left unattended is not sufficient reason for impounding the arrestee's vehicle. State v.......
-
Benton v. State
...State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971), is not applicable to the factual circumstances in the instant case. Also see State v. Cash, 275 So.2d 605 (Fla.App.1st 1973), which discusses 'plain view' and 'inventory' jointly.10 Godbee v. State, 224 So.2d 441 (2 Fla.App.1969); State v. Ruggles, ......
-
Altman v. State
...have upheld the officer's right to take possession of the vehicle and conduct an inventory search. See, for example, State v. Cash, Fla.App.1st, 1973, 275 So.2d 605, where the car was on a motel parking lot and the owner of the lot requested that it be removed. A common pattern running thro......
-
State v. Johnson
...who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence." State v. Cash , 275 So.2d 605, 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) ; accord Harris , 390 U.S. at 236, 88 S.Ct. 992. The trial court found that the officer who reached into the car to recov......